This is how I see history unfolding. America just keeps accumulating more wealth. And then suddenly, "Oh look, China has awakened! Let's find a way to exploit that too."
The energy sector isn't the issue here. But are you actually certain about your stance? As far as I can tell, the American side signed because the United States is explicitly named in the agreement. If they weren't mentioned, there wouldn't be any signatures on the document. And why are they mentioned? I highly doubt it's to hand over any territory.
True, but if the Ukrainian side threatens to cut off gas supplies, you can bet the European Union will just respond by saying, "Oh, really? Then maybe we'll just stop sending weapons."
A weakened, demilitarized Russia. In a nuclear world where only one nation holds total dominance, is that actually a smart move? Regardless of the circumstances.
Sam Alvarez4 said:The interview mentioned in your link... such a shame TASS didn't include the rest of what Antony Blinken said. You know, about the war crimes in Kyiv, or Putin's authoritarian regime, and all that. He made another great point: Zelensky needs less applause and more actual help. Specifically, weapons.
And as for Zelensky, he needs less applause and more support
It is a pity. However, the Tass headline remains consistent with the topic at hand.
Does this mean Russia has an ace up its sleeve? It’s clear our US nuclear plants rely on uranium from Russia. And since there aren't any sanctions on it yet, they're still in the game.
Jack Kelly5 said:Analyst was on that exact same show back in February, though, claiming that a full-scale war wouldn't even happen, and if it did, he thought Kyiv would fall instantly—like, maybe within a week at most, the Russian army would be sitting right on the western border of Ukraine. Analyst.
Now, today, he claims Ukraine can delay its defeat.